IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.1596 of 2009

======================================================

Chandeshwar Yadav S/O Raj Grihi Yadav Vill- Pansari, P.S- Masaurhi,

Distt- Patna

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Surajdeo Yadav S/o late Kuli Yadav

3. Yadu Yadav S/o Surajdeo Yadav

4. Ali Yadav S/o Surajdeo Yadav

5. .Jagdeo Yadav S/o Surajdeo Yadav, all R/o Majhanpura, P.S- Jehanabad,

Distt- Jehanabad

.... .... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bamdeo Padney, Advocate

Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate

For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate

For the State of Bihar : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD

VERMA

ORAL ORDER

3

17-12-2012

Heard Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as also Mr. Sunil

Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party

nos. 2 to 5 at great length.

By the impugned order dated 7th July, 2009 passed in

Sessions Trial No. 322 of 1992/118 of 2009 by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge II, Jehanabad, accused-opposite party

nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of all the charges under sections

302/149, 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1596 of 2009 (3) dt.17-12-2012

2/3

The occurrence in question is said to have taken place

on 27.8.1983 i. e. more than 29 years ago. After submission of the

chargesheet against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, and order taking

cognizance, case was committed to the court of sessions in the

year 1992 giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 322 of 1992. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that charge was framed against

the opposite parties on 8.1.2003. Unfortunately, though aforesaid

session trial remained pending for quite a long time, yet not even a

single witness was produced on behalf of the prosecution in

support

of

the

prosecution

case.

Under

the

aforesaid

circumstances, by the impugned order dated 7th July, 2009,

accused-opposite parties have been acquitted in terms of section

232 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in

fact, summons was not served upon him. Therefore, the impugned

judgment of acquittal may be interfered with by this Court.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after going

through the lower court records, which was summoned by a Bench

of this Court by order dated 15.11.2011, submits that summons

were issued by the learned trial court and despite all other

processes being taken by the learned trial court for securing the

attendance of the witnesses, not even a single witness was

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1596 of 2009 (3) dt.17-12-2012

3/3

produced on behalf of the prosecution.

After having heard the parties and in the background

of the case, when the occurrence in question had taken place about

29 years ago and despite opportunity given, not even a single

witness has been produced on behalf of the prosecution, this Court

is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of

acquittal.

In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly,

dismissed.

RPS/-

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)